Market value under Section 26 is determined from the preliminary notification date, excluding calendar year reckoning.

A batch of 118 first appeals arose from a common judgment dated 30.11.2024 concerning the acquisition of 84.80 acres of raiyati land in Village Tarhesa, Hazaribagh

The land was acquired for NTPC Limited under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act of 2013").

The preliminary notification under Section 11 was published on 12.06.2019

The District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO) fixed compensation at a flat rate of ₹4,823/- per decimal.

Dissatisfied, the claimants sought a reference under Section 64.

The Trial Court enhanced the compensation to ₹11,000/- per decimal by taking an average of the highest sale deeds but subsequently reduced the figure from its own calculated average of ₹15,372/- citing "the interest of justice"

Both NTPC and the claimants appealed the Trial Court’s determination

1. Whether the determination of compensation by the Reference Court was in conformity with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 2013

2. What constitutes the relevant "immediately preceding three years" for determining the average sale price under Explanation 1 to Section 26(1) of the Act of 2013

3. Whether the term "year" in Section 26 must be interpreted as a "calendar year" as per Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897

The Court applied Section 26 of the Act of 2013, which mandates that market value be determined based on the higher of the circle rate under the Stamp Act, the average sale price of similar land in the vicinity, or consented amounts

The proviso to Section 26 clarifies that the referable date for market value is the date of the Section 11 notification

Explanation 1 and 2 to Section 26 specify that the average sale price must be calculated using the top 50% of sale deeds registered during the "immediately preceding three years" of the year of proposed acquisition

The Court also addressed Section 3(66) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regarding the definition of "year," but held it inapplicable if repugnant to the context of the specific statute

The High Court rejected NTPC’s argument that the three-year period should be calculated from the date of NTPC’s fresh application (29.04.2016) rather than the Section 11 notification (12.06.2019).

The Court reasoned that Section 26 expressly links market value to the Section 11 notification date; taking an earlier date would exclude relevant market transactions up to the notification

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the "calendar year" argument, stating that reckoning by British calendar years (Jan-Dec) would be repugnant to the intent of valuing land precisely as of the notification date

Consequently, the relevant period was fixed as 12.06.2016 to 11.06.2019

Regarding the valuation, the Court found the Trial Court erred by manually reducing the rate to ₹11,000/- after its calculation yielded ₹15,372/-.

Under the Act of 2013, once the highest average is determined under Section 26(1)(b), the Court cannot deviate without cogent reasons

The High Court re-evaluated the 16 sale deeds, excluded two that predated 12.06.2016, and calculated the average of the top 50% (7 deeds) of the remaining 14, arriving at ₹15,783/- per decimal

The Court held that the relevant cut-off for the three-year period is the date of the Section 11 notification

The compensation rate was enhanced from ₹11,000/- to ₹15,783/- per decimal

NTPC’s application for additional evidence was rejected as the deeds fell outside the statutory three-year window

The Court affirmed that claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act of 2013 and directed the Executing Court to ensure the deduction of requisite court fees from the enhanced amount